Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confrontés aux différents problèmes que pose la gestion des loisirs sportifs de nature, certains espaces protégés envisagent d’instaurer une gestion participative impliquant davantage les pratiquants et les différents acteurs. En s’appuyant sur une étude de cas réalisée dans le Parc naturel régional de Chartreuse (France), l’article interroge la manière dont les pratiquants ordinaires perçoivent une telle éventualité. L’étude des arguments développés par les simples pratiquants offre une représentation contrastée de la gestion participative. Une typologie dresse les différentes manières de concevoir l’action publique dans ce type d’espace, ainsi que le rôle que chaque citoyen accepterait d’y jouer. L’analyse montre que l’idée de gestion participative se heurte à diverses perceptions de l’anthropisation de l’espace et de la nature parfois « renaturalisée » par les usagers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".